|
In one sense marriage *should* be abolished in the secular sense. Make it a religion-only thing. Force people who want to share LEGAL benefits of partnering to form corporations or partnerships, or execute powers of attorney for each other. That gets rid of ALL this poppycock. After all, secular marriage is a set of legal rights, whereas the concept of love, etc. is religious marriage. Yes, the cermonies establishing each is combined in one "wedding," but let us not forget to separate the secular/legal part from the spiritual/religious part.
Brief note -- it was Mass. that decided the case, not Maryland.
Here is what everyone is getting wrong about this case. It DID NOT DID NOT DID NOT say "gay marriage" was required, but rather that the benefits of marriage should be provided to gay couples. Hey, I don't blame anybody for getting it wrong, since even The Economist screwed it up. Anyway, it need not be called "marriage" and the "civil union" term used in Vermont could be adopted. Hell, we could call it "Bob" or "Cohabitation in Sin Licenses" in fact. The Court was VERY clear on this, and dropped a footnote to explain it need not be "called" marriage. After all, as far as legal rights are concerned, there isn't much in a name -- a rose is a rose no matter what it's called. That doesn't make good press, so all the newspapers got it wrong, but don't be fooled.
__________________
 
|